IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Michael Donnell Martin, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 0:25-cv-12840-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Greenville County; Greenville County ) Detention Center; John/Jane Doe ) Officers; Medical Staff, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Michael Donnell Martin’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se amended complaint filed pursuant to

. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On November 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice, without issuance and service of process, and without further opportunity to amend, explaining that it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that his claim is barred by the statute of limitations and finding that the circumstances do not warrant equitable tolling. (ECF No. 28.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.

(b)(1). In the absence of specific

objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, no objections to the Report have been filed. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 28), and the Court dismisses this action without prejudice, without issuance and service of process,

and without further leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge December 10, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina

2